Lopez v. Lopez, 35,078

Abelino Lopez (Respondent/Appellant), proceeding pro se, appealed multiple district-court orders for a second time.
This Court issued a summary-calendar notice proposing to affirm in part and dismiss in part; Abelino filed a memorandum in opposition construed as a response.
The Court concluded many challenged orders were interlocutory/nonfinal (particularly custody determinations) and therefore not appealable at this time.
The Court treated challenges to an order of protection and its addendum (from a separate related case) as outside the proper scope and proposed dismissal as to those issues.
Abelino failed to meaningfully challenge the district court’s award of attorney fees in his docketing statement or response; the Court proposed to affirm that award for lack of developed argument.
The Court admonished Abelino for making scurrilous allegations against the court and counsel, warned pro se litigants are held to the same rules as attorneys, and cautioned that further misconduct could prompt sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of interlocutory custody orders	Orders are final or appealable	Orders are interlocutory but appellant still seeks review	Dismissed appeals as to nonfinal/interlocutory custody orders (not appealable)
Challenges to order of protection (separate case)	Appellant attempts to attack order of protection in this appeal	Appellant seeks review of order of protection and addendum	Dismissed claims related to the order of protection and addendum (separate case)
Attorney-fee award	Appellant argues fee award improper (generally asserted)	Appellant provided no specific legal argument, facts, or authority in docketing statement	Affirmed attorney-fee award for failure to present developed argument showing error
Pro se status and conduct (scurrilous allegations)	Appellant contends prejudice from self-representation and alleges misconduct by court/counsel	Court records and response show repeated allegations without legal basis	Rejected prejudice claim; reminded pro se litigants held to same standards and warned against abusive filings; potential sanctions noted

Zuni Indian Tribe v. McKinley Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 300 P.3d 133 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (general finality rule: judgment not final unless all issues decided and case disposed to fullest extent)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (burden on appellee/opponent in summary calendar to point out errors of law and fact)
State v. Mondragon, 759 P.2d 1003 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (responding to summary calendar must specifically point out errors; repetition of earlier arguments insufficient)
Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 110 P.3d 1076 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (court will not review unclear arguments or guess at a party’s arguments)
In re Camino Real Envtl. Ctr., Inc., 242 P.3d 343 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (pro se litigants held to same standards and compliance as licensed attorneys)
State v. Harris, 297 P.3d 374 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory/superseding discussion cited in relation to Mondragon)